For the purposes of this Handbook, there are two categories of grievances:
The Peer Review Process is confidential except as agreed to by the grievant faculty member and the University, through its appointed representatives, or as provided herein, or as may be required in a court of law.
14.2.1. Matters Subject to Peer Review
Only the following matters, all of which affect a faculty member’s professional employment at the University, may be appealed to or heard by the Peer Review Process:
• Denial of reappointment, promotion or tenure;
• Cases involving alleged illegal discrimination, except for cases of alleged sexual discrimination which are covered in Section 16.8 “Sexual Harassment/Gender Discrimination” of this Handbook;
• Cases involving alleged violation of professional ethics and responsibilities, as set forth in Section 16.3 “Professional Ethics and Responsibilities” in this Handbook;
• Termination for medical reasons, as set forth in Section 10.5 “Termination for Medical Reasons” in this Handbook;
• Program reduction and faculty reassignment, as set forth in Section 10.6 “Program Reduction and Faculty Reassignment” in this Handbook;
• Termination for cause, as set forth in Section 10.8 “Termination for Cause” in this Handbook; and
• Cases involving disagreement with a post-tenure review development plan, as set forth in Section 9.6.4 “Post-Tenure Development Plan” in this Handbook.
The Peer Review Process will deal with appeals and grievances of matters listed above only for persons who receive a faculty contract; no person who receives an administrative contract (e.g. director, dean, associate provost, vice president) may utilize the Peer Review Process.
Section 14.3 “Complaint Process” applies to all other complaints, grievances and appeals by faculty members.
Related NKU policy: Values and Ethical Responsibilities
14.2.2. Composition of Peer Review Committees
14.2.2.1. Membership of the Committees
There shall be two peer review committees. The Peer Review Advisory Committee shall consist of five members and five alternate members. The Peer Review Hearing Committee shall consist of five members and five alternate members. Alternate members of either Peer Review Committee may be called upon to serve on the other Peer Review Committee; however, no alternate can serve on both Committees to hear the same case. If it is necessary to constitute a full committee, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee shall appoint members to serve until elected members replace them. Members will serve four-year terms beginning on July 1 of the initial year and extending through June 30 of the final year of service. If a hearing is in progress, Committee members are required to continue their service beyond June 30 of the final year until the hearing is concluded.
14.2.2.2. Election of the Committee Members
The members of the Peer Review Committees will be elected at large by the full-time faculty of the University eligible to vote for Faculty Senators. The election shall be conducted by the Faculty Senate Elections Committee. Nominations shall be sought from all full-time faculty eligible to vote for Faculty Senators.
Elections will be held according to the schedule of elections developed by the Elections Committee of the Faculty Senate. Members shall be elected by frequency of votes. In event of a tie, the matter will be settled by the Elections Committee, with the advice and consent of the affected individuals and the President of the Faculty Senate. Membership on the Peer Review Committees should be from a broad representation of the University faculty; therefore no Department/School will be represented by more than one faculty member on each Committee.
14.2.2.3. Terms of the Committee Members
Members of the Peer Review Committees must be tenured full-time faculty. They shall serve staggered four-year terms (1 July to 30 June) to provide continuity of membership. The alternates will serve two-year terms (1 July to 30 June).
14.2.2.4. Chairs of the Committees
Each committee will elect a chair who shall serve for one year.
14.2.2.5. Conflict of Interest
No member of either Peer Review Committee shall serve in the appeal or review of any matter arising from the department(s)/school(s) (or college in the case where there are no departments or schools) of the member’s appointment, in any case in which the member participated in prior to referral to the Peer Review Committee on which the member participates, nor in any matter in which the member may legitimately be called as a witness. It is the responsibility of committee members to exclude themselves from participating on a committee in any proceeding in which they have any other conflict of interest.
14.2.3. Procedure
14.2.3.1. Filing the Petition
Any faculty member wishing to initiate a review by the Peer Review Process must file with the provost one original and eight copies of a written petition. The petition must comply with the following requirements:
• Clearly state the nature of the grievances and any/all attempts that the faculty member has made to resolve the grievance(s); only those grievances listed in Section 14.2.1 of the Handbook can be investigated by the Peer Review Committees. If the faculty member wishes to submit supporting documentation, one original and eight copies of the documentation must be included with the copies of the written petition to the provost. Although decisions regarding the inclusion of supporting documentation are the sole responsibility of the faculty member, the Peer Review Committees discourage the submission of documents unrelated to the specific grievance(s).
• Be filed within the time limits prescribed by the applicable section of this Handbook; for reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure decisions the time limit is fifteen (15) University working days of receipt of the notice from the provost (Section 3.2.13); if no time limit is prescribed elsewhere in this Handbook, the petition must be filed no later than 60 days of the date of the alleged grievous conduct; if a petition is filed after the prescribed time, it shall be dismissed.
14.2.3.2. Withdrawing the Petition
An aggrieved faculty member may withdraw a petition for Peer Review at any time prior to the completion of the Peer Review Process. The faculty member must file a written request with the provost asking that the petition be withdrawn. Withdrawal of the petition shall be effective on the date the written request is received in the office of the provost and all further consideration of the petition shall cease immediately.
14.2.4. Peer Review Advisory Committee
14.2.4.1. Initiating the Process
Within five (5) working days of receipt of a timely filed petition and any supporting documentation, the provost shall forward copies of the petition and any supporting documentation received from the faculty member to the Chair of the Peer Review Advisory Committee, the dean of the college in which the aggrieved faculty member resides; the department chair/school director; the chair of the Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee of the grievant faculty member’s department/school; and/or any other legitimate respondent to the grievance.
14.2.4.2. The Committee Process
Upon receipt of a petition and any supporting documentation for peer review, the dean of the college in which the faculty member resides, the department chair/school director, the chair of the Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee, and/or other respondents may each file a written response to the petition, including supporting evidence, with the Peer Review Advisory Committee within ten (10) University working days of receipt of the faculty member’s documentation. Any respondent filing a written response to the petition shall provide the grievant with a copy of said response. The grievant faculty member may respond in writing within ten (10) University working days of receipt of the response(s) from the dean; department chair/school director; chair of the Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee; and/or other respondents. The chair of the Peer Review Advisory Committee will notify, in writing, all the parties described above of their right to submit a response and will provide each Advisory Committee member with copies of all correspondence.
Normally the Peer Review Advisory Committee will meet no more than ten (10) University working days after receipt by the committee’s chair of the petition and all of the responses described in the previous paragraph.
The chair of the Peer Review Advisory Committee will convene the meeting of the committee. A quorum of the committee shall consist of four of the five members. Alternate members may be used as necessary. Based upon the written information it has received, the committee members will determine whether a prima facie case for a hearing by the Peer Review Committee is presented. All committee members present shall vote. The committee’s determination shall be conveyed in writing to the petitioning faculty member, to the president of Faculty Senate, and to the provost, all within three university working days of the committee’s decision. If the Committee determines that no prima facie case was presented, the petition will be dismissed by the Committee, accompanied by written reasons explaining the committee’s decision. If the committee determines that a prima facie case was presented, the case shall be returned to the provost for further action. If there is a tie vote, the grievant faculty member’s petition shall be forwarded to the provost for further proceedings with a finding that a prima facie case is presented. The entire committee file and record, including the petition and all copies of written statements and documents, shall be forwarded to the provost. If the petition has been dismissed, there shall be no further peer review proceedings. The provost is responsible for safekeeping the record.
14.2.4.3. Resolution by Negotiation
In the event that the Peer Review Advisory Committee determined that a prima facie case was presented, the provost may review the entire record to determine whether the petition might be resolved by negotiation. The provost may consult with the provost’s staff, the deans of the University’s colleges, and/or other appropriate persons while making this decision. In that event, the entire record may be reviewed by those consulted so that proper advice may be given.
If the provost determines that negotiation might resolve the matter, the provost or designee shall negotiate with the grievant faculty member for the purpose of seeking a mutually agreeable settlement. If such a settlement is reached, it will be reduced to writing and signed by the provost and the faculty member. Such an agreement shall not become binding on either party until approved by the University president and Board of Regents, if required. Approval of the Board of Regents is required only as to matters that the Board of Regents must approve, such as reappointment, promotion, and grant of tenure.
14.2.4.4. Non-Resolution by Negotiation
If the petition for peer review is resolved by negotiation, there shall be no further peer review proceedings. If negotiation was not pursued by the provost or the matter was not successfully resolved by negotiation, the provost shall expeditiously forward the petition to the chair of the Peer Review Hearing Committee and to the president of Faculty Senate.
14.2.5. Peer Review Hearing Committee
14.2.5.1. Representation at the Hearing
The provost may designate themself, a dean of a college within the University, but not the college in which the grievant faculty member is assigned, or a department chair/school director, but not the chair/director of the department/school in which the grievant faculty member is assigned, to be the University representative before the Peer Review Hearing Committee.
14.2.5.2. Timing of the Hearing
The Peer Review Hearing Committee shall proceed expeditiously to schedule a hearing and reach a decision.
14.2.5.3. Scope of the Review
14.2.5.3.1. Reappointment, Promotion and/or Tenure
When hearing a case involving denial of reappointment, promotion, and/or tenure, the Peer Review Hearing Committee may receive evidence and consider only the following in order to determine whether the faculty member’s rights have been violated:
• Whether the policies and procedures set forth in Sections 3 “Evaluation”; 4 “Reappointment”; 5 “Promotion”; 6 “Tenure”, and/or 7 “Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure for Librarians” of this Handbook were correctly followed in reaching a decision affecting the faculty member’s professional appointment;
• Whether the faculty member received a reasonable opportunity to present their side of the matter at issue; and/or
• Whether the decision affecting the faculty member’s professional appointment was made in a fair and/or reasonable manner, i.e., whether there was some rational basis to support the decision.
14.2.5.3.2. Illegal Discrimination
When hearing a case involving alleged illegal discrimination (except cases of alleges sexual harassment/gender discrimination which are covered by different procedures and not within the purview or responsibility of the Hearing Committee), the Hearing Committee shall determine whether there was illegal discrimination which affected the decision from which the appeal is taken, and if there was illegal discrimination, make a recommendation for a remedy.
14.2.5.3.3. Violation of Professional Ethics and Responsibilities
When hearing a case involving alleged violation of professional ethics and responsibilities, the Hearing Committee shall be guided by Section 16.2 of this Handbook. The Hearing Procedures provided below apply.
Related NKU policy: Values & Ethical Responsibilities
14.2.5.3.4. Termination for Cause
When the Hearing Committee is hearing a case of termination for cause, the Committee shall be guided by Section 10.8 “Termination for Cause”. The Hearing Procedures provided in Section 14.2.5.4 below are modified in Section 10.8.
14.2.5.3.5. Termination for Medical Reasons
When the Hearing Committee is hearing a case of termination for medical reasons, the Committee shall be guided by Section 10.5 “Termination for Medical Reasons”. The Hearing Procedures provided in Section 14.2.5.4 below apply.
14.2.5.3.6. Program Reduction and Faculty Reassignment
When the Hearing Committee is hearing a case of program reduction and faculty reassignment, the Committee shall be guided by Section 10.6 “Program Reduction and Faculty Reassignment”. The Hearing Procedures provided in Section 14.2.5.4 below apply.
14.2.5.4. Hearing Procedures
14.2.5.4.1. Quorum
A quorum of the committee shall consist of four of the five members. Alternate members may be used as necessary.
14.2.5.4.2. Priority
Hearings involving non-reappointment or termination shall be given preference over all other cases.
14.2.5.4.3. Statement and Witness Lists
The committee must request a written statement of the grievant’s case and a written list of witnesses. The University representative must be given an opportunity to respond with a written statement of the University’s case and a written list of witnesses. These statements and witness lists must also be exchanged between the grievant and the University representative.
14.2.5.4.4. Closed Hearing
Hearings will be closed unless both the grievant faculty member and the University representative agree to an open hearing. That agreement must be in writing and signed by both the grievant faculty member and the University representative, and will be subject to approval by the provost and the University president.
14.2.5.4.5. Advisors
The grievant faculty member may bring a person, including an attorney, to serve as an advisor. This shall be at the grievant faculty member’s expense. If the grievant faculty member intends to bring an advisor, that fact shall be communicated to the Hearing Committee and to the University representative within five university working days of the day on which the grievant faculty member is asked to give the committee a list of witnesses. If the grievant faculty member brings an advisor, the University representative may bring an advisor, including an attorney if the grievant’s advisor is an attorney. Neither advisor may address the Hearing Committee nor question any witness(es); the sole role of the advisor shall be to advise the person to whom they are the advisor.
14.2.5.4.6. Form and Procedure
Hearings shall be non-adversarial in form and procedure. The committee shall seek to learn the truth. The rules of evidence binding upon courts of law are not to be observed; however, the committee shall seek to keep the evidence received pertinent to the issue(s) raised in the proceeding.
14.2.5.4.7. Evidence and Witnesses
The grievant faculty member may present evidence and call witnesses and submit documentation, all of which must be pertinent to the issue(s) raised. Thereafter the University representative may present evidence and call witnesses and submit documentation, all of which must be pertinent to the issue(s) raised. The Committee may call any witness(es) and request any documentation it deems appropriate and pertinent to its investigation. The grievant, the University representative, and the committee shall all be given the opportunity to question each witness before that witness is excused.
14.2.5.4.8. Hearing Transcript
A complete transcript of the hearing shall be made, including all written documents submitted by any person or witness. The transcript shall be reduced to writing.
14.2.5.5. Decision of the Committee
Following completion of the hearing and upon receipt of the complete transcript, the Peer Review Hearing Committee shall promptly meet to deliberate and reach a decision. The decision shall be determined, following discussion, by simple majority vote, which may be by secret ballot, including the vote of the committee chair. A tie vote must be reconsidered. In the event the final committee vote is a tie vote, the grievant faculty member’s petition shall be dismissed. The committee may make the recommendation(s) it deems appropriate, within the scope of its charge as stated above. The decision and recommendations shall be in writing. The decision and recommendation(s) must be based upon written findings of fact, which may be a separate document or included in the decision and recommendation(s).
14.2.5.6. Committee Report
The Peer Review Hearing Committee’s written findings of fact, decision and recommendation(s) shall be delivered to the University president, to the president of Faculty Senate, and to the grievant faculty member within five (5) University working days of reaching its decision. The University president and faculty member shall each receive a copy of the complete transcript of the hearing, including all documents received in evidence.
14.2.5.7. President's Decision
If the matter does not have to be presented to the Board of Regents for a decision, then upon receipt of the written findings of fact, decision and recommendation(s) of the Peer Review Hearing Committee, the president shall make a decision. If the matter requires action by the Board of Regents, the president shall formulate a recommendation to the Board of Regents. In doing so, the President may consult with the provost and with the deans of the University’s colleges, and in that event the provost and the deans may have access to the complete transcript, documents received in evidence, and to the written findings of fact, decision, and recommendation(s). The president shall communicate the decision or recommendation to the grievant faculty member, to the provost, and to the Board of Regents.
14.2.5.8. Board of Regents' Decision
If the decision must be made by the Board of Regents, the president shall forward the president’s recommendation and all previous recommendations pertaining to the hearing to the Board of Regents for final action. The Board of Regents shall deliberate the case and reach its decision. The Board of Regents shall communicate its decision to the president, the provost, and to the faculty member, which may be through the president. The president shall implement the Board’s decision.
14.2.5.9. Communication
In the event that the case provides instruction to any aspect of the University and its procedures, the president may provide a means for that instruction to be communicated to appropriate persons, with confidentiality of the Peer Review Process otherwise maintained.
14.2.5.10. Keeping of the Record
The President is responsible for safekeeping the record.
The following process will apply to all complaints other than those heard by the peer review committees and those not covered elsewhere in this Handbook.
14.3.1. Process Applicability
A faculty member initiates the complaint process when a concern can no longer be resolved through informal
discussion and is not governed by the peer review process.14.3.2. Complaint Process Procedure
The faculty member addresses the complaint in writing to his/her department chair/school director, with copies to the appropriate dean and the provost. The complaint should identify clearly the nature of the concern and record any earlier attempts to resolve the complaint through discussion. In colleges where there is no department or school, the dean will function as department chair in these processes.
If the matter remains unresolved at the chair’s/director’s level, the faculty member may address the complaint in writing to the appropriate dean with copies to the provost and the department chair/school director.
If the matter remains unresolved at the dean’s level, the faculty member may address the complaint in writing to the provost with copies to the department chair/school director and the dean.
The provost or an associate or vice provost assigned at the provost’s discretion will provide oversight throughout the complaint process and will ensure that careful consideration is given to the complaint at every level without prejudice to the complainant.
The department chair/school director, the dean, and the provost are required to respond to the complainant in writing.
14.3.3. Complaint Advisory Committee
Each college shall elect one at-large member to serve on the Complaint Advisory Committee. The members shall serve staggered two-year terms. This election will be conducted by the Faculty Senate at the time of other Faculty Senate elections. Members of the Complaint Advisory Committee will be full-time tenured faculty.
The vice president of the Faculty Senate shall be responsible for calling the first meeting of the Committee, which will then choose a chair from among its elected members. The vice president of the Faculty Senate will also act as an alternate member of the Complaint Advisory Committee should one be needed because of illness or conflict of interest. The Complaint Advisory Committee may be called on to review any complaint and make recommendations to either the department chair/school director or the dean during the procedure outlined in Section 14.3.2 “Complaint Process Procedure” above. If the complaint is addressed in writing to the provost, the provost is required to consult the Complaint Advisory Committee, which will then make recommendations in writing to the provost for resolution of the complaint. The provost and the Complaint Advisory Committee will work as expeditiously as possible to resolve the complaint promptly. The Complaint Advisory Committee shall be provided copies of the written complaint, all written correspondences of the administrator(s) and the complainant, and if the Committee considers it necessary, it may meet with the complainant and others mentioned in the complaint. The complainant and the vice president of Faculty Senate shall also receive a copy of the Complaint Advisory Committee’s recommendations.
A member of the Complaint Advisory Committee may not hear a complaint if he/she is from the same department as the
complainant. In this event, the vice president of the Faculty Senate will serve as alternate.
